RT floats a scenario where our independent city-school-parks systems may have been inefficient:
> But in many cases we continue to make decisions independently of each > other and in the process suck up more operating expenses. Example: > Burroughs School is wonderful but it's really unfortunate that it was > built next to an existing park building....so city taxpayers are paying > to operate one gym---staff and expenses--in the school and one gym half > a block away at the park. Disclaimer: I'm a Burroughs parent, so this one hits close to home. However, I think RT is asking the right question - and I'd like someone who knows to provide a good answer. Here's what I know: the "old" Burroughs (1920s vintage) did use the Lynnhurst gym as its gym. Here's what I think I know: the Burroughs building was sinking because it was located over an underground river connecting to the nearby Minnehaha Creek. Here's what I assume but don't know: Perhaps to avoid the slow-moving quicksand (slowsand?) the "new" Burroughs was built further away from the park building, at the west end of the site. I assume that this was to get it on more stable soil. I also assume that it was probably more expensive to stabilize the soils on the "old" footprint than build on the new. School folks: is this correct or not? And why was reconnecting to Lynnhurst ruled out? IF there was no option but to build away from the park building, a "new" Burroughs faced two choices: build a "second" gym (which RT rightly wonders about) or have the little nippers walk about a block's length, even in frigid weather, to use the Lynnhurst gym. IF I'm correct that the district had no other option, I think we have to tolerate the additional expense because walking would be a huge hassle (in staff time herding cats, I mean, my son and his mates) if nothing else. But again - RT is asking the right question, and I hope the district folks who monitor the list can replay a bit of their decision-making on this issue. I realize we have to look forward. Still, I know a bigger question lingers for lots of Kenny parents (and others) in Southwest: why build a new Burroughs at all when Kenny and Armatage are half-full (with K-5ers; Minneapolis Kids and High Five add some students to both)? I know from having interviewed district folks that the Burroughs plans were well in the works before the enrollment drop and increased class size (which produced many of the now-empty classrooms). Also, Burroughs would have been a darn hard program to shut down; it racks up more first and second choices than Kenny, I'm told. Still, with hindsight, you have to wonder about building so many new classrooms when just a year or two later you're worried about 800 extra citywide. The virtue of the past is that we can learn from it. Again, to knowledgeable observers: what did we learn from building Burroughs when we did only to talk of closing Kenny one year later? Respectfully submitted, David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
